3G RDX vs Mazda CX-5 Turbo
 

2019 Mazda CX-5 just came out with a 2.5 turbo engine in the top of the line Signature and a lesser GT Reserve trims. 250 hp with premium / 227 hp with regular fuel. 310 lb-ft with either fuel. The top of the line Mazda is equipped similarly to a fully loaded RDX including all the safety gizmos and things like HUD display, etc, plus it has Android Auto and power folding mirrors. Doesn't have the adaptive dampers and it's Mazda's torque vectoring vs SH-AWD in the Acura. Slightly more compact exterior dimensions by a couple of inches, but interior volume seems comparable. No formal reviews or tests out there yet, but wanted to start a conversation and see what folks think of this model vs the RDX.

Yes I have read a lot about the 2019 mazda cx5. I have crossed the 2019 RDX off my list (not here to bash it..huge honda/Acura fan) and the XC60 T6 Inscription is at the top,but really want to see the Mazda. When we test drove vehicles in 2016.....Tucson/CRV/Forester/Outback/Rav 4/Rogue/ The Cx5 handled the best out of all of them,but lacked some of the items we desired. But the new Signature model has a lot to offer and at a fair price of around $40,000. Some say thats high for a "Mazda" But u sure get a lot for the $$$$. The people I know that have Mazdas,have been a happy bunch! My sister had 1 (just traded it in for a new Pilot) and had zero issues with it. I have seen a few online test drives of 1 on youtube,,,,,he was impressed, but that means nothing,lol

If the engine is similar to the one found in the Mazda 6 or Mazda CX-9, then it's gonna be slower than the RDX despite the power and torque rating.

Here are some comparison figures:

Mazda6 2.5 GT
250hp/310lbft
Weight: 3563lb
0-60mph: 6.4s
1/4 mile: 14.9s@97mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...5t-test-review

Honda Accord 2.0T Touring
252hp/273lbft
Weight: 3419lb
0-60mph: 5.5s
1/4 mile: 14.1s@102mph
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review

That's night and day difference in terms of performance.

Also, I sat in a new CX-5 in the auto show, and its interior materials/quality are steps below the RDX. It looks nice in photos, but certainly feel a lot cheap in person.

This is not a dig on the CX-5 by any means. Given its price, it's a great buy much like the CR-V. It's sort of like the Accord 2.0T Touring vs Audi A4.

I think the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are probably affected more by the 10sp vs 6sp transmissions and likely more wheel spin on the Mazda 6 due to higher torque. Looking deeper into the C&D tests above, the Mazda 6 actually does better in 30-50 and 50-70. Will be interesting to wait for an instrumented CX-5 test to see if wheel spin will play a lesser factor in an AWD vehicle vs a front drive sedan. For those who are not looking to drag race, the 6 is still a respectably fast car, even though the Accord is even faster.

As far as interior quality, Mazda claims to really up their game with the Signature trim - Nappa leather and real wood. I have not seen it in person, but will probably check it out in the next few weeks. I don't expect it to be as posh as the 3G RDX, but perhaps it will be on par with the 2G RDX which I own and am happy with as far as interior materials.

For sure, having more gears would help. Having said that, 6AT is not bad at all and for me, it's enough. From that point on, diminishing returns kicks in. Even with the number of gears factored in, there's a pretty significant gap in performance which suggests that the K20 is simply a more powerful motor. It's pretty well known that Honda underrate their engines much like what the German brands do these days like Audi and BMW.

Yea, having more torque means it's easier to overwhelm the front wheels. However, with the 10AT, the Accord is likely to have more aggressive gearing. The gears are like torque multiplier. The torque and power that get to the ground are probably more than in the Mazda 6. That would make sense to since you do need to put down more power to the tires to accelerate faster. Also, 1/4 mile trap speed is not really affected by grip level, it's a good indication of how fast a car is without worrying about grip.

The 30-50mph and 50-70mph tests are more about how aggressive/responsive the transmission is. It also helps that the Mazda 6 has fewer gears to go through when downshifting. After all, these tests are top gear acceleration tests, it's easier to go from 5th or 6th gear to 2nd or 3rd, rather than from 8th or 9th gear to 3rd or 4th gear.

I test drove both on the same day last Saturday and both are terrific cars, a few notes from my end:

- The RDX is about a half size bigger inside and out. Whereas the RDX can legit seat 3 in the back, the CX-5 is really a 2 person car in the back and the tunnel eats up a lot of space.
- The engines have very different characteristics which is what you'd expect. The Acura is a revver and the Mazda is a tugboat.
- The interior is flashier in the RDX and a bit nicer.
- The RDX is livelier.

In Canada, the CX-5 Turbo is the same price as a CR-V Touring (fully loaded) and if space isn't a concern then it's no contest that the CX-5 is better then the CR-V. The diff between the CX-5 and RDX is about $12K for similar trims and it's not clear to me that it's worth it - the extra room is great, the slightly nicer interior is nice but beyond that....I'm having a long hard think on this one.

7.3 sec 0-60 per Mazda. Performance figures toward the back of the document.

https://www.docdroid.net/mjZMMPd/19-cx

It's a good value, but wouldn't be that interested.

Let us know what you decide! I'm not actively in the market yet, but probably will be sometime next year. Just looking around and learning from others' feedback at this point.

7.3 sounds conservative as most 0-60 times are measured. It's about what the much larger, much heavier CX9 manages with the same powertrain. But the focus should be on 5-60, 30-50 and 50-70 times anyway. In the real world, those are the numbers that matter. Unless you do abusive Car and Driver style launches on a regular basis, that is.

It seems like Mazda is either pulling a Kia or pulling a Ford. Kia if the engine doesn't make as much power as stated/ doesn't seem to make the power stated and a Ford if they are severely limiting first gear boost. I suspect it's the latter as even the 6 is quite behind the Accord.

The only advantage to the Mazda is the handling. Just got mine last night, so have not made a determination on it's handling yet, but did rent the CX-5 and it was very road worthy.

Drive RDX and CX-5 on the same day on same roads and see the difference. I disagree with you on CX-5 handling vs RDX

Surprised a rental agency had a new CX5 2019 with the turbo..isnt that only on the 2 top trims?

:)

Ah, no. Same handling, just smaller motor. Handling to handling, not motor to motor which isn't out yet.

I never really count a rental car the same as 1 would buy on a lot......I know there is def a different feel in vehicles based on trim levels!

Good to know. I drive the Vette, and am very use to high speed cornering, so when the car breaks in, I will give it a go and report back. My Vette has Michelin PS4s (fantastic tire, and don't need AS type tires here in So. Cal) and will have to see if they are available for my 20 inch rims on the RDX.

Here you go!
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires...XLV2&tab=Sizes

Just ordered a set for my Civic last week! Heard so many positive things about these tires...can't wait to put them on next spring!

I test drove a top-of-the-line '19 CX-5 Signature at 8 am this morning before heading to the Acura dealership for a 9 am appointment to test drive a '19 RDX (which I bought!). The 2 big non-starters for the CX-5 were (1) lack of refinement; and (2) the loud and grunty 2.5L SkyActiv engine. I was so disappointed with the CX-5 that I cut the test drive short. The salesman was so disappointed that he actually became rude.

Thats too bad, was hoping it would be a good value. I had a slaes guy contact me this weekend as they had 1 that just arrived, but I bought something else....and didnt want to waste his time....enjoy the RDX

I really wanted to like the CX-5 Signature. It seems like an excellent value ($10k cheaper than the '19 RDX that I bought) and Mazdas tend to be quite reliable.

I test drove the step down from the signature today, Grand Touring Reserve, as they can't keep any Signatures in stock at this point by me. I've test driven the RDX Advance several times and it obviously out classes the CX-5 "anything". That said, the thing I dislike the most is the piped in exhaust noise in the RDX. The CX-5 turbo'd 2.5l is much quieter, and slower. The Signature is a great "bang for the buck" contender in the compact SUV category. Just as the RDX is vs. the QX-5, or X3. It's great to have choices!

I doubt most people in the market for and RDX would bother with a CX-5. If you are comparing it to a CR-V to a CX-5, then this makes sense.

I was intending to replace my wife's 2010 CR-V with a 2019 CR-V. Then the gas/oil dilution issue became a thing, so that was out. I always liked the RDX and the redesign was very appealing to me. I test drove it and thought it was perfect. Our timeline for replacement has always been early 2019, so why not see what else is out there? From there I went to the Q5, X3 and GLC. I fell in love with the Q5 Prestige, mainly for the seat comfort and digital dash. It was coming down to a value proposition. Was the Q5 worth $10k more than the RDX? A few weeks passed and my wife, who is not really a car person, starts to figure out that the Germans are expensive in the long haul. Meaning, that $10k will grow over time.

That brings us to the CX-5. One of our daughters has an older, like 2014, CX-5. She's had zero issues with it and really likes it. So, we stopped by the Mazda dealer, which is right next door to the Acura dealer. We come to find out about this new Signature version which is about to be released, so I did some research. We are now in the opposite situation, where the RDX is about $10k more than the RDX. I like being married, so my wife has a lot of say with the vehicle we get for her. :) Like I said, she's not really a "car person", meaning she just wants to get from point A to point B safely. The CX-5 Signature looks like it may be what fits her best.

After typing all that, I'm starting to realize you are probably right. "Most" people in the market for an RDX are more than likely not cross shopping the CX-5. I've never been confused for someone who follows a pattern, though. :)

You're not alone man. I test drove the CR-V first, then the Rav4 hybrid as my wife wanted a Hybrid. The CR-V was close to $40k CAD, and the RAV4 hybrid is like $43k CAD. Since there's a Lexus dealership beside the Toyota dealership, we also went to test drive a RX350. My wife enjoyed the RX350 and wanted the hybrid version. Unfortunately a loaded RX450 hybrid is like $77k CAD...which is a bit too much. Even a loaded RX350 was around $70k. We then test drove the RDX a couple times, and ended up with the Elite Platinum trim at $55k, which is right around the middle of these cars.

I feel like there's a pretty big gap in quality, power, refinement, features, and luxury feeling when going from the CR-V/Rav4 to the RDX. I can quantify where the extra $15k goes to easily. While there's a bit of a step up in luxury feeling going to the RX, I'm not quite convinced the gap is worth $15k from the RDX Elite Platinum. It's a little quieter, a little smoother, and materials are a bit nicer. But I also lose the fun to drive part, the handling, and the acceleration.

The piped in exhaust noise is definitely annoying compared to the CX-5 if sound level matters to you (it does a lot to me). C/D has the CX-5 at 65db and the RDX at 69db at 70mph - that's a huge difference (65 is luxury car territory, 69 is family sedan territory).

I'm amongst those comparing the CX-5 Signature against the RDX A-Spec - it's about a $12K diff in Canada with those trim levels while a base RDX is about $3K more than a Signature so cross shopping shouldn't be a surprise. Both are terrific cars with different selling points and I think the $12K diff is not covered strictly in what you get, there's definitely some aspect of badge value showing up there. I'm not ready to make a decision yet (planning to buy in Q1) and I'll be taking both cars for an extended test drive (a few hours) before deciding. The RDX is the nicer car all around but $12K better? Not sure about that one.

Re: CX-5 being slower. I don't think that's been proved yet - the RDX comes in at 6.6s in the 0-60 and I'd expect the CX-5 to be right around there too (the CX-9 does it in 7s and is 400-600lbs heavier).

I was going off of my test drives. It felt substantially slower, but it was probably running at ~220HP on 87 octane. I do appreciate that Mazda breaks out the difference in performance between using regular and premium gas.

Have they tested the signature CX-5 yet? From what I see on C/D, they had the 2017 CX-5 GT AWD at 67dB and the RDX A-spec at 68dB:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/amv-prod-ca...ouring2017.pdf
https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/fi...1534989527.pdf

I think it's more fair to be using AWD for both cars when comparing numbers. Also, the RDX tested was the A-spec version. With 20" wheels and wider tires, it's gonna be louder unfortunately. The other trims are quieter, and even more so for the advance trim with even more focus on quietness.

I test drove both an A-spec and Elite platinum trim and the difference is fairly noticeable.

Just wondering for your pricing, are you including taxes or something? CX-5 Signature is $43k CAD, and RDX A-spec is $52.5k CAD, both with PDI included. $9.5k difference. I'm asking because the $3k difference in mentioned between the RDX base and CX-5 signature is right at $3k, before taxes. So ya, I wanted to point it out just so you actually have the right numbers haha!

Good catches - my mistake.

I only looked at the sound levels for the 2017 FWD GT (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...wd-test-review) which they had at 65db, didn't see the AWD test which you've cited. Based on the data you cite, there's reason to believe that the two cars have similar sound levels with the RDX likely being slightly higher but not significantly. A better set of tires not the RDX A-Spec or the Advance/Platinum Elite trim would probably close the diff.

re: Pricing - The $12K is after taxes - I was flip flopping on pre/post taxes. My bad. FWIW, financing is also a lot worse - the CX-5 is ~2.65% and the RDX is 3.9-4.9%. Mazda's loyalty discount also applies to anyone who owns a Mazda while Acura's only applies if you're actively financing an Acura/Honda or within 1 year of being financed (I own both a Mazda and an Acura but only Mazda gives me the loyalty rate). It starts really adding up if I choose to finance (which I'm 99% certain I will).

So corrected Canadian (BC) pricing comp for CX-5 vs RDX (taken from Mazda sales guy and Acura website), listed as pre-tax and post-tax (rounded to the nearest hundred):

CX-5 GT $42,500/$47,600 (there's no Reserve trim in Canada)
CX-5 Signature $43,100/$48,300
RDX Base: $46,200/$51,700
RDX A-Spec: $53,000/$58,800

All listed models are AWD trims (no FWD available in Canada for these trims). 5 year financing rates are 2.65% (Mazda) vs 3.9% (Acura) as of this week.

Some early reviews of the CX-5 Signature are coming out and the reviewers are pretty positive about it and the RDX gets brought up as an apt comparison.

https://driving.ca/mazda/cx-5/review...cx-5-signature
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/driv...-turbocharger/

All three of these reviews make comments about it being comparable to a RDX or to German crossovers selling for $10K more.

I'm planning to take both cars out for extended test drives at the end of the year - the Mazda dealer says I can take it overnight as well. Looking forward to a back to back comparison over a full day.

Yea the CX-5 would definitely be the better value. This pretty much applies to the CR-V, Rav 4, etc too. It's like how the Accord 2.0T looks like a really good buy versus the Audi A4 2.0T. I think it comes down to whether you'd like to go for the more luxurious experience.

I think you will know the winner once u test drive both........I know when I have found the right car, it just feels right. The people I know that have Mazdas really like them and no issues....Good luck

I've been also looking at the CX-5. As far as refinement goes, it's not a fair comparison to the Acura and the other luxury brands. They seem to need a lot more work on their tech/driver enhancements (e.g. infotainment, camera quality).
That being said, the cost difference is also a factor as they do give you "more bang for your buck".

Here is CD's take: https://news.yahoo.com/depth-photos-2019-mazda-cx-182300751.html

Note that they have 0-60 in 6.2s and they specially called out RDX!

As for screen quality, although RDX does have higher resolution but it's backup and surrounding (360 view) camera are disappointing, Mazda camera quality is of the same.

Overall CX -5 is doing what Acura does to the German. The interior, while feels quality, does lack the high tech look of Acura's. I would say it's more BMW like than anything else on the market. It probably took inspiration from it, it's not very original.